I'm pretty sure you're right that Stackpole would've faced more scrutiny nowadays. The vast majority of Bantam material was released while the interwebs were still young, and communities of Star Wars nutters like us weren't as populated. Or, at least, as populated with sharp and perceptive nutters who like to eviscerate continuity mistakes.

I'm pretty sure you're right that Stackpole would've faced more scrutiny nowadays. The vast majority of Bantam material was released while the interwebs were still young, and communities of Star Wars nutters like us weren't as populated. Or, at least, as populated with sharp and perceptive nutters who like to eviscerate continuity mistakes.

To be fair some of us are perfectly ok if not everything continuity wise doesn't match up as long as it's a good story and merely dislike Stackpole's books because, of terrible prose, plotting,dialogue, characterisation and the amazing ability to degenerate tension in any of his scenes. Like I said earlier the guy ruined the TIE fighter and made the X-wing so brilliant they can take out whole Star Destroyers by them selves, and all done by just 12 cyphers, who wink.
Let's not also forget he turned a great throwaway line into a whole planet wide saying which wouldn't really make sense if one of them was a bookies

Even though it doesn't jive with the rest of the EU, I've always enjoyed Dark Empire I.

And while I used to think the Emperor returning from the dead undermined the events of the OT, the PT's clone plot and Palpatine's allusion to his master's quest for immortality makes me think that they might draw on DE for inspiration when they write the new ST. I'm starting to hope so, actually.

Exactly. Too bad the authors of LOTF were intent on Caedus not being a credible villain (if he has to be a villain at all, that is).

To expand on what I said, I believe from the beginning, as early as KOTOR II, Jango and Boba Fett represent the Mandalorians. For Boba in particular, hunting bounties is a distraction, his lowest point before he gets it together and focuses his efforts on consolidating a dying and scattered race. For Boba to die without doing anything with the Mandalorians is what we like to call an unresolved plot point (and we get enough of those to not need another).

I actually don't mind the Mandalorians ceasing to be after the deaths of two shells of men. It would have been a tragic ending for a once noble, if violent, race. There's something sad yet poetic with a slow demise that simply fades away...

Meh, when you look at Fett's arc over the course of Star Wars history, it's incredibly thematically inappropriate for him to die in the sarlacc. Just because it was in the movie doesn't mean it should be holy doctrine.

I disagree, especially after the prequels came out and changed things for better or for worse. Just going by the intent of the movies we have:

We have Fett's origin in AOTC: Cloned from his father, who was essentially a pawn of the Sith apprentice and whose template was used to make the stormtroopers that put the Empire into power. Boba's last scene is him cradling the severed head of his father who was just killed by a Jedi. Not hard to imagine what's going through his head then.

ANH/ESB: Now-adult Fett is a pawn for the Sith apprentice just like his father was, and helps him set a trap for the last remaining Jedi.

ROTJ: Just like his father, Fett tries to kill the last remaining Jedi in a free-for-all on a hot sandy planet, only to meet his death, only days before the Empire that's propped up by his clone-brothers collapses.

It's a pretty thematically appropriate character arc. Definitely better than, say, Jabba has over the course of the films. And nothing Fett does in the EU set pre-ROTJ really changes that IMO.

Meh, when you look at Fett's arc over the course of Star Wars history, it's incredibly thematically inappropriate for him to die in the sarlacc. Just because it was in the movie doesn't mean it should be holy doctrine.

I disagree, especially after the prequels came out and changed things for better or for worse. Just going by the intent of the movies we have:

We have Fett's origin in AOTC: Cloned from his father, who was essentially a pawn of the Sith apprentice and whose template was used to make the stormtroopers that put the Empire into power. Boba's last scene is him cradling the severed head of his father who was just killed by a Jedi. Not hard to imagine what's going through his head then.

ANH/ESB: Now-adult Fett is a pawn for the Sith apprentice just like his father was, and helps him set a trap for the last remaining Jedi.

ROTJ: Just like his father, Fett tries to kill the last remaining Jedi in a free-for-all on a hot sandy planet, only to meet his death, only days before the Empire that's propped up by his clone-brothers collapses.

It's a pretty thematically appropriate character arc. Definitely better than, say, Jabba has over the course of the films. And nothing Fett does in the EU set pre-ROTJ really changes that IMO.

You nailed it. Also, let us not forget that all of Boba's arc that is referenced here happened well after he fell in that sarlacc pit in the films. I love the EU, but this is one area where they can tend to drive me a little nuts. People get all up in arms when something Lucas does contradicts the EU, but when the EU does that to the films they are often perfectly content if it means hearing more stories about a character that is way cooler than he was ever portrayed in the movies.

Sure it doesn't, but what does he exactly contribute to the EU? What is so extraordinary about Boba Fett that he must survive the sarlacc? Sure that he is a Mandalorian (which exists millions of them) and he is a Fett (which exists millions of them, in the case if any Clone Trooper survived passed the ANH or even RotJ or had any kids (which actually Legacy, that masterpeice (being ironic), shows that as well).

Boba actually went through some interesting character development, as somebody said previously A Barve Like That and Last Man Standing more than justify his return to me, and in his limited appearances in the NJO and associated works he really showed character growth.

Of course that was before Traviss decided inexplicably to bring his character back to square one in LotF and A Practical Man. Also, as much as I dislike Denning, to his credit he does write a pretty good Boba Fett.

I guess that MY unpopular opinion is that I like Boba Fett and I was happy to see him brought back, so there.

The biggest problem I have with Stackpole is his constant notion that all you need is an X-wing dogfight or two and then the entire planet has been conquered.

I think Stackpole is actually one of the least problematic writers in that area. If you look at his books, Borleias is conquered via X-wing battle only because it's an unpopulated world with a single military base, which the first time is struck by a naval bombardment and ground landing which goes awry, and then is ultimately conquered via an X-wing strike to soften the defenses before another combined-forces strike. Wedge's Gamble is all about, again, softening the defenses via covert operations and precision fighter strikes, and it's established that the actual conquest happens via big naval battle and ground landings, and is presented as a big undertaking. I don't think they conquer anywhere in The Krytos Trap, and then in The Bacta War, we've got a villain who's essentially taken over a planet by coup, and who is removed from power via a naval/starfighter attack that eliminates her primary source of power, her navy, and a resistance uprising on the ground that takes the capital and purges her government. Isard's Revenge features another combined-arms attack, in which the Rogues work with a fleet and ground troops to take out the naval forces over a planet and then secure the key ground sites on the lightly garrisoned planet, and then another attack where fighters, commandos, and naval forces eliminate the enemy's naval strength, decapitate the regime, and liberate specific targets, allowing them to conquer the planet. I don't recall there being any planetary conquest in I, Jedi or Dark Tide, and as for the comics, there's only Brentaal, which again involves an entire combined-arms campaign that actually proceeds slowly, first taking the moonbase, then some of the cities, then finally securing the capital by shooting away the defenses that prevent troops from landing.

Stackpole tends not to get very far into the details of ground campaigns, because that's not where his characters are, but he always acknowledges the combined-arms role in actual planetary conquest and certainly never says anything that would contradict the idea of having to put boots on the ground to clean things out (when overwhelming naval superiority isn't enough to get a surrender). When X-wing dogfights are being allowed to decide the fates of worlds, it's because Stackpole has constructed a scenario that allows that, not because the larger issues are being ignored. "One skirmish to conquer a planet" is a problem Star Wars has, but I'm not convinced that Stackpole is part of the problem.

"Boba eventually gets out of the Sarlacc" doesn't actually contradict what we see on screen though.

You see I'm not sure I agree with that. I realize this is an unpopular opinion I have, but given this thread it is ok to share it

Boba was meant to die I think. The comical way in which he met his end was purposeful. He was never anywhere close to awesome in the movies as he has been described in the EU. I get lots of people like Boba Fett, but perhaps my biggest unpopular opinion is that he is well beyond overrated, and should have stayed in the sarlacc where he belonged for such a stupid blunder. If the guy can;t control his own equipment like that he deserves to be digested for over a thousand years. It also completely ruins the danger of the Sarlacc for me. If a bounty hunter who could get owned by a blind guy can get out, then Luke surely would have been ok. Honestly, his existence just kinda ruins it for me a bit. If Boba was supposed to live then the movies would have shown him get out, or just actually use his jetpack before ever making that long fall into the pit in the first place. To me, seeing the quick irony of his fathers death in Attack of the CLones was the nail in the coffin of symmetry on Boba's death. I get I am being nitpicky, and I certainly do not mind if other people like boba and disagree with me. It's not like my opinion can magically change what has happened, but I would be perfectly happy to never hear a word of Boba in the EU ever again.

Sorry for that rant, but I am really not a Boba fan and feel he takes attention away form things I would rather learn about.

Having finally read the Bounty Hunter Wars, I actually like them, even if they clash quite a bit with the IMO superior Tales of the Bounty Hunters.

I actually don't mind the Mandalorians ceasing to be after the deaths of two shells of men. It would have been a tragic ending for a once noble, if violent, race. There's something sad yet poetic with a slow demise that simply fades away...

See, one of the key themes that I personally got from KOTOR II is that the Force, or more specifically Force users, are fallible. Kreia spends the entire game teaching the Exile about the Force, and specifically looks down upon those who can't use it. She misses the idea that the Force connects all living things; this is conveyed when Kreia finds she can't read Bao-Dur's alien mind, but the Exile has no problem with it. By observing only the big picture, Kreia misses the smaller details, the details that prove to be the most important.

My interpretation was always that Kreia saw the death of Jango, and with it, the death of the people. But, once again, she saw the big picture, but missed the smaller details; the shell of a man had a son. Though this son would originally fall into the same trap his father and so many others had, working for credits, he would eventually revive the Mandalorians, and presumably set them on the first steps to reclaiming at least a portion of their former glory.

There is a certain tragedy in a once proud warrior race simply fading away, and I think it works on that level if Jango is the final Mandalorian. But Boba being killed by a blind smuggler in a scuffle while working for a gangster? That doesn't work quite so well for me.

I disagree, especially after the prequels came out and changed things for better or for worse. Just going by the intent of the movies we have:

We have Fett's origin in AOTC: Cloned from his father, who was essentially a pawn of the Sith apprentice and whose template was used to make the stormtroopers that put the Empire into power. Boba's last scene is him cradling the severed head of his father who was just killed by a Jedi. Not hard to imagine what's going through his head then.

ANH/ESB: Now-adult Fett is a pawn for the Sith apprentice just like his father was, and helps him set a trap for the last remaining Jedi.

ROTJ: Just like his father, Fett tries to kill the last remaining Jedi in a free-for-all on a hot sandy planet, only to meet his death, only days before the Empire that's propped up by his clone-brothers collapses.

It's a pretty thematically appropriate character arc. Definitely better than, say, Jabba has over the course of the films. And nothing Fett does in the EU set pre-ROTJ really changes that IMO.

Even within the context of the films alone, I feel Fett's death is ultimately unsatisfying. With the added context of the EU, it becomes a plotline that dies before it can even reach its climax. As Tvtropes might say, they dropped a bridge on him.

Boba Fett was originally meant as nothing more than a cool looking background character. There isn't much getting around that. On that level, Fett's death in ROTJ works well enough; insignificant grunt dies in an insignificant manner. If you take Jango into account, it's a bit more problematic, but I suppose it's acceptable, even if it is a definite case of Dropped a Bridge on Him

But when you take the Mandalorians into account, it becomes a much greater problem. Like them or hate them (I'm somewhere in the middle, myself), the Mandalorians have always been an extremely important part of Star Wars. Perhaps Lucas only intended for Fett to be some pretender in Mandalorian armor. Regardless of the intent, from the beginning, Fett became synonymous with the Mandalorians. Their story is his, and his story is the culmination of theirs.

While we can by no means call Fett's arc a "heroic journey", he has become a big enough character to have something resembling it. A three-act Road of Trials, of a sort. Typically, the character will begin entirely self assured. At about the exact midpoint, the character reaches their lowest point, a point that brings them close to complete despair. In the third act, the character rises from that despair and becomes, if not stronger than before, at least still breathing. Obviously not every story or character arc should be constrained to such a simplistic and barebones structure, particularly if that character happens to be generally regarded as a villain. But even so, Fett's story seems to follow it exactly.

If we're taking the view that Fett's arc is synonymous with the Mandalorians, the first act would be their glory days of the Old Republic. Sure, the trend of Mandalorians always being used by the Sith begins in earnest, but the Mandalorians are assured of their own greatness. They're a proud warlike race, and don't believe they can be beaten. Then, of course, they're almost utterly destroyed. Enter Jango. Disillusioned, Jango forsakes all that had made him a Mandalorian and works for credits, something considered low. Once Jango dies, Boba continues this. This serves as the characters lowest point, with the near death at Jabba's palace serving as the catalyst for upward momentum. From there, the Mandalorians are rebuilt, as Fett gets back on the track that he had lost decades before.

Therein lies the problem I have with Fett's death at Jabba's. As a near death, it serves a purpose. As a death, it serves no purpose, other than to knock off one of the enemies. As I mentioned, this is fine for just the OT alone. But with the EU into account (and I would argue that the EU has contradicted nothing in regard to Fett or the Mandalorians, but done what it's meant to do; expand), it completely kills an arc midstride, in the middle of the second act. Fett dies at his lowest point, dying on the job working for a petty gangster, not the Sith. Perhaps that's a good thing, depending on your point of view.

Star Wars has always been a story of redemption. I believe that theme is further solidified with the arc of the Mandalorians, and Fett. From a proud race, to a broken people represented by a man who's content to use his skills hunting bounties. Through his interactions with one he views as low, he sees only a reflection of himself; he uses the experience to reunite the Mandalorians.

And besides, if Fett hadn't survived, we wouldn't have gotten The Last One Standing. Even if almost all of it has been retconned, it's one of the greatest character studies in the EU. It's the perfect link from bounty hunter Fett, his lowest point, to Fett as a catalyst for his race's revival. If I were in charge, I would have had Fett die in LOTF, having served his purpose. Now, he truly is just around for no reason at all.

But obviously this just comes down to your interpretation of the character. I simply feel that his death in the sarlacc is a extraordinarily unsatisfying way to kill a character that has, for better or worse, developed an arc that runs through the entire timeline.

"Boba eventually gets out of the Sarlacc" doesn't actually contradict what we see on screen though.

By that logic you could say that Owen and Beru were actually Yuuzhan Vong scouts in disguise, they fought off the stormtroopers, killed two neighboring farmers to stage their own deaths, and then escaped back to the Unknown Regions.

Does it completely contradict the intention of the screenwriter, director, actors, and ignore the storyline presented? Yes, but at least it doesn't contradict what's directly shown!

The concept of dual phase lightsabers in general? That predates I, Jedi- first appeared in Jedi Academy: Dark Apprentice.

Or is it the lightsaber itself- with its being made from various bits including a speeder bike handle?

I was referring to the notion of the dual phase lightsaber itself and every time it is mentioned I roll my eyes, I didn't realize we were only talking about I Jedi (which I rather enjoyed even if I don't particularly care for Corran that much).

It just seems like a silly detail to me. I recall his rationale for why it was a better weapon, but I don't buy it. Maybe Jedi should all have lightsabers that are 20 feet long so they can kill people from even greater distances.

It's not that long- closer to 6 ft. And Corran does point out it's very limited in its use.

"Fully adjustable" lightsabers, that can be made whatever length's convenient, rather than just having two settings, have been mentioned in other sources- would make sense as training sabers for trainees of various sizes.

There is a certain tragedy in a once proud warrior race simply fading away, and I think it works on that level if Jango is the final Mandalorian. But Boba being killed by a blind smuggler in a scuffle while working for a gangster? That doesn't work quite so well for me.

This would have been my thought prior to the PT but after seeing Boba as a child in AOTC and TCW, I wish they had just left him to rot in that pit.

But when you take the Mandalorians into account, it becomes a much greater problem. Like them or hate them (I'm somewhere in the middle, myself), the Mandalorians have always been an extremely important part of Star Wars. Perhaps Lucas only intended for Fett to be some pretender in Mandalorian armor. Regardless of the intent, from the beginning, Fett became synonymous with the Mandalorians. Their story is his, and his story is the culmination of theirs

I'm pretty sure that almost every pre-AOTC source (except one Marvel comic) specified that Fett only wore Mandalorian armor, not that he was Mandalorian himself. Maybe there are a few other early sources, but once his EU back story started to come together in The Essential Guide to Characters, the Mandalorians all died in the Clone Wars and Boba was just some guy wearing their armor. Which I actually like better but no one asked me so whatever.

While we can by no means call Fett's arc a "heroic journey", he has become a big enough character to have something resembling it. A three-act Road of Trials, of a sort. Typically, the character will begin entirely self assured. At about the exact midpoint, the character reaches their lowest point, a point that brings them close to complete despair. In the third act, the character rises from that despair and becomes, if not stronger than before, at least still breathing. Obviously not every story or character arc should be constrained to such a simplistic and barebones structure, particularly if that character happens to be generally regarded as a villain. But even so, Fett's story seems to follow it exactly.

1-10 - Happy childhood raised by an amoral murderer
10-16 - Incompetent child bounty hunter
16-18 (?) - Happy family man with a wife and daughter, despite being a teenager
18-19 - Imperial stormtrooper
19-53 - Best bounty hunter in the galaxy
53-76+ - Leader of the Mandalorians, who think he is an idiot but follow him because his last name is Fett

Not the most balanced character arc.

Therein lies the problem I have with Fett's death at Jabba's. As a near death, it serves a purpose. As a death, it serves no purpose, other than to knock off one of the enemies. As I mentioned, this is fine for just the OT alone. But with the EU into account (and I would argue that the EU has contradicted nothing in regard to Fett or the Mandalorians, but done what it's meant to do; expand), it completely kills an arc midstride, in the middle of the second act. Fett dies at his lowest point, dying on the job working for a petty gangster, not the Sith. Perhaps that's a good thing, depending on your point of view.

This is all hindsight, though. Boba Fett having or wanting anything to do with the Mandalorians is a very recent addition to his history. In-universe, once he got out of the Sarlacc pit he just went right back to doing what he had been doing before, and kept doing it almost for another twenty years, so I don't see the Sarlacc as being much of a "wake-up call" for him. OOU, Dark Empire brought him back in mid-1992, and he didn't become Mandalore until TUF came out at the end of 2003. And it's clear that that only happened because the prequels came out and solidified Boba's Mandalorian heritage. If he hadn't been in AOTC, I'm sure the EU would have just kept him bounty hunting forever. So I don't really see there being an "arc" so much as someone saying "well we might as well have him do this now."

Besides, if we're looking at all this in hindsight and not how the story developed in real time, then it wouldn't even matter if Fett had died in the Sarlacc because the Mandalorians never even went extinct anyway so they didn't need anyone to bring them back.

Star Wars has always been a story of redemption. I believe that theme is further solidified with the arc of the Mandalorians, and Fett. From a proud race, to a broken people represented by a man who's content to use his skills hunting bounties. Through his interactions with one he views as low, he sees only a reflection of himself; he uses the experience to reunite the Mandalorians.

Should turning a planet of farmers into a more efficient band of bloodthirsty mercenaries really be considered redeeming them?

And besides, if Fett hadn't survived, we wouldn't have gotten The Last One Standing. Even if almost all of it has been retconned, it's one of the greatest character studies in the EU. It's the perfect link from bounty hunter Fett, his lowest point, to Fett as a catalyst for his race's revival. If I were in charge, I would have had Fett die in LOTF, having served his purpose. Now, he truly is just around for no reason at all.

Agreed. Well, partially; Fett dying or not doesn't bother me because he was so out-of-character in TUF and LOTF he might as well be dead already.

My opinion on Fett's resurrection is that, at the time they were writing DE, he shouldn't have been brought back because as a storytelling move that was lazy, pointless, and dumb. Later on, though, it turned out to be a blessing in disguise because the EU, as it often does, took something dumb, lazy, and pointless and got two great stories and a few okay ones out of it. Of course, since those stories came out, both the movies and the EU have done everything in their power to ruin that small handful of stories, but you take what you can get, I guess.

Having finally read the Bounty Hunter Wars, I actually like them, even if they clash quite a bit with the IMO superior Tales of the Bounty Hunters.

I actually don't mind the Mandalorians ceasing to be after the deaths of two shells of men. It would have been a tragic ending for a once noble, if violent, race. There's something sad yet poetic with a slow demise that simply fades away...

See, one of the key themes that I personally got from KOTOR II is that the Force, or more specifically Force users, are fallible. Kreia spends the entire game teaching the Exile about the Force, and specifically looks down upon those who can't use it. She misses the idea that the Force connects all living things; this is conveyed when Kreia finds she can't read Bao-Dur's alien mind, but the Exile has no problem with it. By observing only the big picture, Kreia misses the smaller details, the details that prove to be the most important.

My interpretation was always that Kreia saw the death of Jango, and with it, the death of the people. But, once again, she saw the big picture, but missed the smaller details; the shell of a man had a son. Though this son would originally fall into the same trap his father and so many others had, working for credits, he would eventually revive the Mandalorians, and presumably set them on the first steps to reclaiming at least a portion of their former glory.

There is a certain tragedy in a once proud warrior race simply fading away, and I think it works on that level if Jango is the final Mandalorian. But Boba being killed by a blind smuggler in a scuffle while working for a gangster? That doesn't work quite so well for me.

I disagree, especially after the prequels came out and changed things for better or for worse. Just going by the intent of the movies we have:

We have Fett's origin in AOTC: Cloned from his father, who was essentially a pawn of the Sith apprentice and whose template was used to make the stormtroopers that put the Empire into power. Boba's last scene is him cradling the severed head of his father who was just killed by a Jedi. Not hard to imagine what's going through his head then.

ANH/ESB: Now-adult Fett is a pawn for the Sith apprentice just like his father was, and helps him set a trap for the last remaining Jedi.

ROTJ: Just like his father, Fett tries to kill the last remaining Jedi in a free-for-all on a hot sandy planet, only to meet his death, only days before the Empire that's propped up by his clone-brothers collapses.

It's a pretty thematically appropriate character arc. Definitely better than, say, Jabba has over the course of the films. And nothing Fett does in the EU set pre-ROTJ really changes that IMO.

Even within the context of the films alone, I feel Fett's death is ultimately unsatisfying. With the added context of the EU, it becomes a plotline that dies before it can even reach its climax. As Tvtropes might say, they dropped a bridge on him.

Boba Fett was originally meant as nothing more than a cool looking background character. There isn't much getting around that. On that level, Fett's death in ROTJ works well enough; insignificant grunt dies in an insignificant manner. If you take Jango into account, it's a bit more problematic, but I suppose it's acceptable, even if it is a definite case of Dropped a Bridge on Him

But when you take the Mandalorians into account, it becomes a much greater problem. Like them or hate them (I'm somewhere in the middle, myself), the Mandalorians have always been an extremely important part of Star Wars. Perhaps Lucas only intended for Fett to be some pretender in Mandalorian armor. Regardless of the intent, from the beginning, Fett became synonymous with the Mandalorians. Their story is his, and his story is the culmination of theirs.

While we can by no means call Fett's arc a "heroic journey", he has become a big enough character to have something resembling it. A three-act Road of Trials, of a sort. Typically, the character will begin entirely self assured. At about the exact midpoint, the character reaches their lowest point, a point that brings them close to complete despair. In the third act, the character rises from that despair and becomes, if not stronger than before, at least still breathing. Obviously not every story or character arc should be constrained to such a simplistic and barebones structure, particularly if that character happens to be generally regarded as a villain. But even so, Fett's story seems to follow it exactly.

If we're taking the view that Fett's arc is synonymous with the Mandalorians, the first act would be their glory days of the Old Republic. Sure, the trend of Mandalorians always being used by the Sith begins in earnest, but the Mandalorians are assured of their own greatness. They're a proud warlike race, and don't believe they can be beaten. Then, of course, they're almost utterly destroyed. Enter Jango. Disillusioned, Jango forsakes all that had made him a Mandalorian and works for credits, something considered low. Once Jango dies, Boba continues this. This serves as the characters lowest point, with the near death at Jabba's palace serving as the catalyst for upward momentum. From there, the Mandalorians are rebuilt, as Fett gets back on the track that he had lost decades before.

Therein lies the problem I have with Fett's death at Jabba's. As a near death, it serves a purpose. As a death, it serves no purpose, other than to knock off one of the enemies. As I mentioned, this is fine for just the OT alone. But with the EU into account (and I would argue that the EU has contradicted nothing in regard to Fett or the Mandalorians, but done what it's meant to do; expand), it completely kills an arc midstride, in the middle of the second act. Fett dies at his lowest point, dying on the job working for a petty gangster, not the Sith. Perhaps that's a good thing, depending on your point of view.

Star Wars has always been a story of redemption. I believe that theme is further solidified with the arc of the Mandalorians, and Fett. From a proud race, to a broken people represented by a man who's content to use his skills hunting bounties. Through his interactions with one he views as low, he sees only a reflection of himself; he uses the experience to reunite the Mandalorians.

And besides, if Fett hadn't survived, we wouldn't have gotten The Last One Standing. Even if almost all of it has been retconned, it's one of the greatest character studies in the EU. It's the perfect link from bounty hunter Fett, his lowest point, to Fett as a catalyst for his race's revival. If I were in charge, I would have had Fett die in LOTF, having served his purpose. Now, he truly is just around for no reason at all.

But obviously this just comes down to your interpretation of the character. I simply feel that his death in the sarlacc is a extraordinarily unsatisfying way to kill a character that has, for better or worse, developed an arc that runs through the entire timeline.

I struggle with this because again we are trying to put the context of Boba's value and quality of his death on sources that exist outside of the films well after we see him fall into that pit. Mandalorians only maintain importance because of what the EU has said after the fact. Boba is only seen as an individual of that proud race because of sources in the EU after everything has been done. I'm vertainly not trying to rip on the EU. I love the EU. This is one area where I feel like it really goofed though by immortalizing a character that was always meant to just be a cool looking goon thus making his incredibly pathetic on screen death be unacceptable thus making him alive and going against what has taken place on screen. Oh well, this isn't called the unpopular opinions thread for nothing.

The reason for me for Boba Fett being dead is quite simple. First of all, I don't like the resurrections, even for popular characters. Sure there was an exception, which was Daniel Jackson from series Stargate SG1, but having him not exactly died and ascended helped for me liking his return to life. He wasn't gone. It is like reading Luke chatting with Obi-Wan, Yoda or Anakin, since they are dead, but their souls are still there for main characters to interact with them, they aren't completely gone.

Despite this when character dies is dead, if they return to life, i feel cheapen to value of that character's death. I mean if Obi-Wan returns back to world of the living I feel cheapen by the sacrifice Obi-Wan did to save Luke. The reason I don't like and don't consider DE canon is because of Emperor being reborn. I'm sorry but the Emperor died in the bowls of Second Death Star, there isn't more dead than being thrown. And no his spirit doesn't linger, because goes against the hole philosophy to the reason why Obi-Wan being killed becomes a Force ghost.

It is the main reason for me that Palpatine and Tarkin, like Boba, they died, they are gone, they aren't coming back. If I want Tarkin to return from the living I usually do the rule of the brother or sibling, which makes interesting character in retrospective of the canon character that died.

The other main reason if we look to history of Boba, aside from one or two stories which are good, he and the Mandalorians didn't contribute to the post-Endor setting. Boba himself after surviving the sarlacc, soon after he fells back to sarlacc... again and escapes... yet again. The guy should write a book "How to get out of sarlacc with your life", and I think it will be best seller. That is not original, that is a lazy story, to say the least. After roaming the galaxy he becomes the leader of the Mandalorians (species that has been said many times was long destroyed by the Jedi, but let's skip that part), where he builds the Mandalorians to be yet once again a formidable opponent for... to stay neutral 90% of the time.

So in conclusion, in my opinion, just due two stories or so, doesn't make the character worthwhile to return from the dead. Even after the events that happen between Caedus and Boba's daughter, I thought Boba was actually gonna have real objective on his life, to get Caedus, but it seems that part of the story gets fergotten and my opinion of Boba thus remains.